Hey, Asteriktos, where did you get the idea that they used the rope. Any texts about it? Thanks in advance.

I don't recall the exact source where I got the idea from. I seem to remember learning about it while I was a Protestant, so we're talking about maybe 11 or 12 years ago. Apparently the source was wrong--though I'm certainly at fault as well, because I'm the one who bought into the idea to the point that I could remember that idea a dozen years later.

« Last Edit: January 08, 2010, 11:55:39 PM by Asteriktos »

Logged

"Christian America is finally waking up to what fraternities and biker gangs have known for years: hazing works!"

The Ark of the Covenant and its contents was the most holy object in the Temple and the Holy of Holies where it sat was the most sacred place on Earth.

Wasn't that the place where only one guy in the entire world could go in, and they tied a rope to him in case he died inside, so they could pull him out? That must have been some heavy duty venerating!

Hey, Asteriktos, where did you get the idea that they used the rope. Any texts about it? Thanks in advance.

I remember being told this, too - by a Messianic Jew, actually.

Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Hey, Asteriktos, where did you get the idea that they used the rope. Any texts about it? Thanks in advance.

I don't recall the exact source where I got the idea from. I seem to remember learning about it while I was a Protestant, so we're talking about maybe 11 or 12 years ago. Apparently the source was wrong--though I'm certainly at fault as well, because I'm the one who bought into the idea to the point that I could remember that idea a dozen years later.

You're not the only one:

Quote

The entrance of the High Priest into the Holy of Holies was a perilous journey. A rope was tied to his feet, in case he didn't survive and had to be dragged back into this world.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Hey, Asteriktos, where did you get the idea that they used the rope. Any texts about it? Thanks in advance.

I don't recall the exact source where I got the idea from. I seem to remember learning about it while I was a Protestant, so we're talking about maybe 11 or 12 years ago. Apparently the source was wrong--though I'm certainly at fault as well, because I'm the one who bought into the idea to the point that I could remember that idea a dozen years later.

Hey, Asteriktos, where did you get the idea that they used the rope. Any texts about it? Thanks in advance.

I don't recall the exact source where I got the idea from. I seem to remember learning about it while I was a Protestant, so we're talking about maybe 11 or 12 years ago. Apparently the source was wrong--though I'm certainly at fault as well, because I'm the one who bought into the idea to the point that I could remember that idea a dozen years later.

You're not the only one:

Quote

The entrance of the High Priest into the Holy of Holies was a perilous journey. A rope was tied to his feet, in case he didn't survive and had to be dragged back into this world.

This discussion is fascinating and I'm hesitant to break the flow, so please feel free to ignore this. But I'm looking at all of these pictures people have posted and this question of whether or not Jews had icons, whether an icon of Christ is an image of the Father ... what I'd like to know is, what is the difference between a picture and an icon? I know icons are made in a special way, blessed (is that right?) and venerated in a special way. And they are meant to conform to particular representational rules, aren't they?

But still ... at what point does an icon take on something that differentiates it from a religious picture?

Also, if you read the book, "The Bible, Protestantism, and the rise of natural science" then you will see some of the connections of why the modern age in the west is mostly Atheistic. This will also help you understand why the ancient world saw things(nature) differently.

Just as the ancients had a 3 or 4 tier system of Biblical interpretation, they also had a multi-layered interpretation in regards to nature as well.

ICXC NIKA

Thanks, Jnorm. I'll try to get to that book but, obviously, if I were to do this properly I'd need to spend a year or so reading not just that book, but lots of others - something I should do, but maybe not yet! I'm familiar with interpretation in the 4 types, but I don't understand exactly how this explains icons?

I see it as being related to the multiple meanings or interpretations of the "physical" world.

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

Just to ask: what exactly does the Cherubim look like in Jewish temples?

What we know about them comes from Exodus 24:18-22 and Exodus 25:40 (LXX). There were two carved statues of cherubim on the lid of the Ark of the Covenant which faced each other and their wings stretched towards each other. So we know that they had faces and wings. There were also ten curtains which hung at the entrance of the Holy of Holies, and each curtain had a cherubim on it.

Were they subject to veneration? Does the Talmud or "Jewish Fathers" say anything?

The Jews bowed down in front of the footstool in the Temple(Psalm 99:1-5)Psalm99:1-5"The LORD reigns; Let the peoples tremble! He dwells between the cherubim; Let the earth be moved! The LORD is great in Zion, And He is high above all the peoples. Let them praise Your great and awesome name— He is holy. The King’s strength also loves justice; You have established equity; You have executed justice and righteousness in Jacob. Exalt the LORD our God, And worship at His footstool— He is holy."

Just to ask: what exactly does the Cherubim look like in Jewish temples?

What we know about them comes from Exodus 24:18-22 and Exodus 25:40 (LXX). There were two carved statues of cherubim on the lid of the Ark of the Covenant which faced each other and their wings stretched towards each other. So we know that they had faces and wings. There were also ten curtains which hung at the entrance of the Holy of Holies, and each curtain had a cherubim on it.

Were they subject to veneration? Does the Talmud or "Jewish Fathers" say anything?

The Jews bowed down in front of the footstool in the Temple(Psalm 99:1-5)Psalm99:1-5"The LORD reigns; Let the peoples tremble! He dwells between the cherubim; Let the earth be moved! The LORD is great in Zion, And He is high above all the peoples. Let them praise Your great and awesome name— He is holy. The King’s strength also loves justice; You have established equity; You have executed justice and righteousness in Jacob. Exalt the LORD our God, And worship at His footstool— He is holy."

Isn't there a difference between venerating something considered holy for its content (eg. the Torah, items in the temple), and venerating something whose holiness derives in at least in part from what it represents or symbolizes? I'd have said this is one of the key problems of differentiating between idolatry and veneration.

Btw, Jnorm, when you refer to interpretation in the four types, are you saying icons are somehow a fifth type, close to communicating Truth? Or that they are some kind of allegory?

Just to ask: what exactly does the Cherubim look like in Jewish temples?

What we know about them comes from Exodus 24:18-22 and Exodus 25:40 (LXX). There were two carved statues of cherubim on the lid of the Ark of the Covenant which faced each other and their wings stretched towards each other. So we know that they had faces and wings. There were also ten curtains which hung at the entrance of the Holy of Holies, and each curtain had a cherubim on it.

Were they subject to veneration? Does the Talmud or "Jewish Fathers" say anything?

The Jews bowed down in front of the footstool in the Temple(Psalm 99:1-5)Psalm99:1-5"The LORD reigns; Let the peoples tremble! He dwells between the cherubim; Let the earth be moved! The LORD is great in Zion, And He is high above all the peoples. Let them praise Your great and awesome name— He is holy. The King’s strength also loves justice; You have established equity; You have executed justice and righteousness in Jacob. Exalt the LORD our God, And worship at His footstool— He is holy."

Isn't there a difference between venerating something considered holy for its content (eg. the Torah, items in the temple), and venerating something whose holiness derives in at least in part from what it represents or symbolizes? I'd have said this is one of the key problems of differentiating between idolatry and veneration.

Btw, Jnorm, when you refer to interpretation in the four types, are you saying icons are somehow a fifth type, close to communicating Truth? Or that they are some kind of allegory?

The Ark of the Covenant and its contents was the most holy object in the Temple and the Holy of Holies where it sat was the most sacred place on Earth.

Wasn't that the place where only one guy in the entire world could go in, and they tied a rope to him in case he died inside, so they could pull him out? That must have been some heavy duty venerating!

Hey, Asteriktos, where did you get the idea that they used the rope. Any texts about it? Thanks in advance.

We learned it in our protestant years. Well, at least I know I did.

ICXC NIKA

« Last Edit: January 09, 2010, 10:19:30 AM by jnorm888 »

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

Just to ask: what exactly does the Cherubim look like in Jewish temples?

What we know about them comes from Exodus 24:18-22 and Exodus 25:40 (LXX). There were two carved statues of cherubim on the lid of the Ark of the Covenant which faced each other and their wings stretched towards each other. So we know that they had faces and wings. There were also ten curtains which hung at the entrance of the Holy of Holies, and each curtain had a cherubim on it.

Were they subject to veneration? Does the Talmud or "Jewish Fathers" say anything?

The Jews bowed down in front of the footstool in the Temple(Psalm 99:1-5)Psalm99:1-5"The LORD reigns; Let the peoples tremble! He dwells between the cherubim; Let the earth be moved! The LORD is great in Zion, And He is high above all the peoples. Let them praise Your great and awesome name— He is holy. The King’s strength also loves justice; You have established equity; You have executed justice and righteousness in Jacob. Exalt the LORD our God, And worship at His footstool— He is holy."

Isn't there a difference between venerating something considered holy for its content (eg. the Torah, items in the temple), and venerating something whose holiness derives in at least in part from what it represents or symbolizes? I'd have said this is one of the key problems of differentiating between idolatry and veneration.

Btw, Jnorm, when you refer to interpretation in the four types, are you saying icons are somehow a fifth type, close to communicating Truth? Or that they are some kind of allegory?

From reading the book, I saw that the ancients didn't interprete the natural world only in it's "literal" sense. Instead, they did so through both "literal" as well as through "Allegory/Typology....etc" And so I am saying that Icons(something that is physical and part of the natural world) is part of the 4 type tradition. The 3 or 4 modes of interpretations wasn't with just Scripture alone, but with Nature as well...the created world and so Icons can have a strictly Church based interpretation that makes it different from other forms of art.

But yes, Icons can be Theological as well. I saw Icons that were more political/National historical, and theological.....and so yes. In some sense, I see some of our Icons as a type of "semi-language". We do have rules, but not all of our rules are uniform and so everyone isn't always on the same page, but in general, I do see a type of theology in many of our Icons. There is one in where you have two adams in the garden of Eden, one has a beard while the other doesn't. I love that Icon for it's rich theological depth. Infact, you could make a ton of sermons off that one Icon alone.

« Last Edit: January 09, 2010, 10:54:28 AM by jnorm888 »

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

Isn't there a difference between venerating something considered holy for its content (eg. the Torah, items in the temple), and venerating something whose holiness derives in at least in part from what it represents or symbolizes? I'd have said this is one of the key problems of differentiating between idolatry and veneration.

Btw, Jnorm, when you refer to interpretation in the four types, are you saying icons are somehow a fifth type, close to communicating Truth? Or that they are some kind of allegory?

From reading the book, I saw that the ancients didn't interprete the natural world only in it's "literal" sense. Instead, they did so through both "literal" as well as through "Allegory/Typology....etc" And so I am saying that Icons(something that is physical and part of the natural world) is part of the 4 type tradition. The 3 or 4 modes of interpretations wasn't with just Scripture alone, but with Nature as well...the created world and so Icons can have a strictly Church based interpretation that makes it different from other forms of art.

But yes, Icons can be Theological as well. I saw Icons that were more political/National historical, and theological.....and so yes. In some sense, I see some of our Icons as a type of "semi-language". We do have rules, but not all of our rules are uniform and so everyone isn't always on the same page, but in general, I do see a type of theology in many of our Icons. There is one in where you have two adams in the garden of Eden, one has a beard while the other doesn't. I love that Icon for it's rich theological depth. Infact, you could make a ton of sermons off that one Icon alone.

I'm not sure I'm following you. May I go over what you said and see where I went wrong?

Interpretation in the four types can be applied to Scripture, the natural world, and other things, I agree. It's an interpretative strategy based on hermeneutics, which sits well with Christianity because God is necessarily hidden from our earthly sight. But, accepting that, how does it follow that

Quote

Icons can have a strictly Church based interpretation that makes it different from other forms of art.

. You could interpret any picture you chose according to the four types. You could also apply Orthodox theology to many non-Orthodox images, and construct an interpretation according to the four types that was consistent with Orthodox theology, too.

I'm really confused as to what this thing is that makes icons so different from other art... maybe I'll just 'see' it one day, I hope so.

Isn't there a difference between venerating something considered holy for its content (eg. the Torah, items in the temple), and venerating something whose holiness derives in at least in part from what it represents or symbolizes? I'd have said this is one of the key problems of differentiating between idolatry and veneration.

"The Holy IconsI venerate holy icons in perfect accord with the second commandment of the Decalogue [Ten Commandments] and not in contradiction to it. For, before the Incarnation of God, before the Nativity of Jesus Christ, any representation of Him would have been the fruit of man's imagination, a conception of man's reasoning concerning God Who is by nature and in His essence incomprehensible, indescribable, immaterial, inexpressible and unfathomable. Every conception or imagination concerning God will, by necessity, be alien to His nature; it will be false, unreal, an idol. But when the time was fulfilled, the Indepictable One became depictable for my salvation. As the Apostle says, "we have heard Him, we have seen Him with our eyes, we have looked upon Him and have handled Him with our hands" (I John 1:1). When I venerate the holy icons I do not worship matter, but I confess that God Who is immaterial by nature has become material for our sakes so that He might dwell among us, die for us, be raised from the dead in His flesh and cause our human nature, which He took upon Himself, to sit at the right hand of the Father in the Heavens. When I kiss His venerable icon, I confess the relatively describable and absolutely historical reality of His Incarnation, His Death, His Resurrection, His Ascension into the Heavens, and His Second and Glorious Coming.

The Veneration and Worship of the Holy IconsI venerate the holy icons by prostrating myself before them, by kissing them, by showing them a "relative worship" (as the definition of the Seventh Ecumenical Council says) while confessing that only the Most Holy Trinity is to be offered adoration. By the words "relative worship" I do not mean a second rate worship, but that they are worshipped because of their relation to God. God alone, Who is the cause and the final goal of all things, deserves our worship; Him alone must we worship. We worship the saints, their holy relics and their icons only because He dwells in them. Thus, the creatures that are sanctified by God are venerated and worshipped because of their relation to Him and on account of Him. This has always been the teaching of the Church: "The worship of the icon is directed to the prototype." Not to venerate the saints is to deny the reality of their communion with God, the effects of Divine sanctification and the grace which works in them; it is to deny the words of the Apostle who said, "I no longer live, but Christ liveth in me." (Gal. 2:20). I believe that icons are a consequence of and a witness to the Incarnation of Our Saviour and an integral part of Christianity; thus there is no question of a human custom or doctrine having been superimposed upon the Tradition of the Church, as though it were an afterthought. I believe and I confess that the holy icons are not only decorative and didactic objects which are found in Church, but also holy and sanctifying, being the shadows of heavenly realities; and even as the shadow of the Apostle Peter once cured the sick—as it is related in the Acts of the Apostles—so in like manner do the holy icons, being shadows of celestial realities, sanctify us."

From the back cover of the Orthodox Wall Calendar published by St. Nectarios Press, Seattle, Washington.

Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)

I don't have a problem with icons. I have them everywhere. Home, Work in the car and on my Cell phone and on my MP3 player... They bring me comfort that the saints of the past are praying for me... I know my brother who is a KJV-only hell & brimstone Baptist and he with his family attended our wedding... I thought he was going to pee his pants or scream when he saw people kissing icons and crossing themselves.... Most Prots don't know that Dr. Luke is the first Icon writer who wrote the first Icon of the Theotokos

If anyone has ever talked to a Hindu who worships idols, they will also tell you that the idol fashioned is not the deity him/herself, but rather a material depiction, and that the worship passes through the prototype to the actual essence of the deity. People don't tend to think that the depiction "is the god", but rather than when summoned, the deity temporarily takes residence within the vessel to receive adoration.

Don't we also believe that the saints and Christ are "made present" in a special way thought the icons?

I think the notion that we are different by praying through rather than to icons is a false setup which caricatures the "others" in a way that is not honest.

Orthodox don't claim that icons are that of a Deity. They are a representation of the actual person. Kinda like a picture of a loved one. If you look at the Hindus they actually worship the image. Orthodox don't do this. We use them as a constant reminder of the Saints who have gone after us.

Orthodox don't claim that icons are that of a Deity. They are a representation of the actual person. Kinda like a picture of a loved one. If you look at the Hindus they actually worship the image. Orthodox don't do this. We use them as a constant reminder of the Saints who have gone after us.

I know a lot of Hindus. No one I know thinks they worship an image! They worship the God represented by that image. I grant that Hinduism doesn't convince me at all, but we shouldn't misrepresent it.